October 01, 2016

As has been mentioned here before, the Obama administration is pushing Middle Eastern "refugees" into our country without screening them, thus endangering the health and safety of American citizens. One has only to look at recent events in countries such as Germany, France, Belgium and Denmark to comprehend the folly of unchecked, unscreened acceptance of "refugees".

Texas said Friday that it won't participate in President Barack Obama's plan to help thousands of Middle Eastern refugees resettle in the United States.

Gov. Greg Abbott's office announced the decision Friday and the governor has cited security concerns are reasons for his opposition.

"The lax security of the refugee program is indefensible & endangering to all Americans," he said via Twitter on Thursday.

That's smart; the Obumble administration claims that all refugees are "screened by a thorough process", but in essence they're simply taking them at their word: "Yes, I'm healthy, No, I'm not a terrorist". That's stupid, but it's what the Bumbler-in-chief is doing - and when Pantsuit's elected, she's vowed to hurry even more of them in here.

So Texas is telling them that if they insist on bringing them into the country, they can't bring them into Texas. Good for them.

June 24, 2016

While politicians in Brussels vent their pique by insisting that Britain get the hell out of the EU right now, ominous signs of more trouble have arisen: Turkey was planning to join but is now backing away.

France, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Hungary could leave.

The Dutch were already upset over a treaty between the EU and Ukraine, so they've been thinking about leaving anyway. In Germany, Angela Merkel is unhappy with the results of the British referendum but is seeking a compromise that would make the U.K an "associated partner country" with the EU. But she's been part of the problem as she's pushed for unfettered "immigration" by Muslim "refugees", which has not gone over well among citizens of the other countries; Hungary has flatly refuse, in fact, saying that they don't need immigrants.

She is, however, more pragmatic and less petulant than our president, who just got smacked again yesterday in federal court in the executive-amnesty case United States v. Texas, in which SCOTUS tied and thus effectively affirmed the ruling of the lower federal court.

During Obama’s presidency, Texas has been forced to sue his administration dozens of times for a wide variety of abuses.

Worse, from Obama's perspective, is that Texas keeps winning. And he can't stand that. As he falsely claimed yesterday:

Now, as disappointing as it was to be challenged for taking the kind of actions that other administrations have taken, the country was looking to the Supreme Court to resolve the important legal questions raised in this case. Today, the Supreme Court was unable to reach a decision.

Well, Barry, they did reach a decision; they affirmed the ruling last year by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and they said so in their ruling yesterday.

As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals observed in its decision to stay the amnesty last November, “historical practice that is so far afield from the challenged program sheds no light on the Secretary’s authority to implement DAPA.”

In fact, as the president explained at the time, the constitutional legislative process didn’t give him what he wanted, so, as he famously bragged, he “changed the law” by decree.

Problem is, Barry - you don't get to change the law, your job is to carry out the law. And frankly, you suck at your job. Additionally, you did not take "the kind of actions that other administrations have taken", as the Fifth Circuit Court noted in their observation that a president is not permitted to change the law. No other president has so often effectively dared the courts to rule against him, and no other president has been so frequently slapped down by those courts.

It's really no wonder that, having had to repeatedly sue the Obama administration as a result of his continued over-reach, more people in the Republic of Texas are giving consideration to secession. According to the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the agreement under which Texas became a state, they have every right to do so.

March 07, 2016

The U.S. Supreme Court may be nearing a decision on whether to hear a case brought against Colorado by two neighboring states over marijuana legalization.

Supreme Court justices were scheduled to meet privately Friday to discuss the case, which was filed in 2014 by the attorneys general in Nebraska and Oklahoma.

Nebraska and Oklahoma argue that pot flowing out of Colorado is not only illegal under federal law but presents an undue burden to them. Colorado argues that their legalization doesn't affect the fed's ability to criminalize the weed, and the Choom gang currently in orifice has urged SCOTUS not to take the case. They may be disinclined to do so anyway, because it's going to be a biggie and with the death of Justice Scalia, they're down a member. So they may choose to punt for the time being.

Under the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, federal law "trumps" state law when the two are in direct conflict.

Andy Johnson of Fort Bridger, Wyoming says he made sure to get the proper permits from his state government before building the pond.

Johnson is facing millions in fines from the federal government after the EPA determined his small pond -- technically a "stock pond" to provide better access to water for animals on his ranch -- is somehow violating the federal Clean Water Act.

The EPA has, in the past few months, managed to kill rivers in Georgia, Colorado, and Arizona - prompting the sovereign Navajo Nation to file charges against the agency - yet they believe that a rancher who builds a small pond on his own property must owe them millions of dollars in "fines". Moreover, they've been losing case after case in federal courts due to what the judges recognize as continued overreach, but that doesn't even slow them down:

A federal judge in North Dakota acted late on Thursday to block the Obama administration’s controversial water pollution rule, hours before it was due to take effect.

Judge Ralph Erickson of the District Court for the District of North Dakota found that the 13 states suing to block the rule met the conditions necessary for a preliminary injunction, including that they would likely be harmed if courts didn't act and that they are likely to succeed when their underlying lawsuit against the rule is decided.

The decision is a major roadblock for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers, who were planning on Friday to begin enforcing the Waters of the United States rule, expanding federal jurisdiction over small waterways, like streams and wetlands.

But the Obama administration says it will largely enforce the regulation as planned, arguing that the Thursday decision only applies to the 13 states that requested the injunction.

As always, EPA strikes a defiant tone - and a stupid one; if, as expected, the thirteen states win, their water-grab becomes void nationwide. By the way, according to EPA, if water pools on your land following a heavy rain - they call it a "wetland", even if it remains for only hours or days. Property rights? What are those? You don't own that land!

Not to be out-done by American government agencies, the Mexican government has evidently forgotten that Texas isn't part of their country: they issued a "warning" to the state last Monday not to refuse to issue birth certificates to their "anchor babies":

The Mexican government is warning that Texas’ denial of birth certificates for U.S. children born here to undocumented immigrants stands to imperil the relationship between Mexico and the Lone Star State.

The concern was raised in an amicus brief filed Monday evening to lend support to immigrants parents who sued Texas after being denied birth certificates for their U.S.-born children, even after showing their “matrículas,” the ID cards issued by the Mexican Consulate to undocumented immigrants.

Mexico says the practice stands in stark contrast to the historical practice among countries to accept passports or other forms of ID to issue birth certificates.

Well, compadre, let's get a couple of things straight, here, okay? You boys don't grant citizenship to anybody other than in-country-born Mexicans, so you can take your "historical practice" and stick it. More to the point, Texas doesn't need you - particularly since the only things you send to them are illegal drugs and illegal aliens.

Here's the way I see it, Pedro: Texas can ship them back home, and you can issue the birth certificates in your own damn country.

July 09, 2015

This may spell big trouble for Portland, because even though the city's really into density (we do, after all, have some of the densest politicians in the country), the Portland area is predominantly white; it is, in fact, frequently referred to by some as "the whitest city in America).

The Fair Housing Act, which originally was passed in 1968 and barred racial discrimination, demanded the government end segregation.

The new rule takes this a step further and requires cities across the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and report the results every three to five years. Communities would also have to set and track goals to further reduce segregation.

"Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child's future," Julian Castro, the secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development, said Wednesday in a written statement.

In essence, it appears that as part of the "fundamental transformation of America", the Obama administration is taking it upon themselves to nullify local zoning rules and transfer that authority to the federal level, nationwide. States' rights? What a quaint concept; but the feds know what's best.

Every suburb and town will fall under their new label of "transit villages", which means that they will require some extensive redesign:

More "mixed-use development", which will create "vibrant, walkable communities". Where you'd like to live is obsolete; you will live where, and how, you're told to live. It'll be utopia, just like in the old Soviet Union. And you will "celebrate diversity", whether you want to or not.

March 10, 2015

It appears that a bill introduced today in the U.S. Senate would do just that - at least for medical marijuana.

In what advocates describe as an historic first, a trio of senators plan to unveil a federal medical marijuana bill Tuesday.

The bill, to be introduced by Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), would end the federal ban on medical marijuana and implement a series of reforms long sought by advocates. They include downgrading its status with the Drug Enforcement Agency from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, allowing doctors to recommend its use in some cases to veterans, expanding access to researchers and making it easier for banks to provide services to the industry.

Advocates are understandably thrilled. It's interesting to see conservatives like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz favoring a state's right to legalize while claiming to disagree with such policies. Presumably, they're wearing cups. Otherwise, straddling the fence could get painful.

March 06, 2015

Despite the fact that a sensible approach to things generally involves a modicum of caution - and thus it would have been sensible to observe and learn from the experiences in Colorado and Washington before leaping up to legalize marijuana - the mantra of the day ever since Obama was first elected to the pResidency has been "we can't wait". And so the OLCC now finds itself saddled with the unenviable task of trying to figure out how to test, tax, distribute, and otherwise regulate the stuff; a task further complicated by the preexisting medical marijuana dispensary system.

A dispensary recently opened two blocks from our house in what was formerly a deli, and I took a look at the place. They made extensive renovations to the building itself, including considerable security measures, and yet aesthetically it's quite nicely done. I was surprised. And it doesn't appear - at least thus far - to be attracting unsavory elements. So perhaps legalization will work out.

With four American states so far having defied the United Nations and the federal government by ending marijuana prohibition, the UN’s army of drug warriors has been meeting in Vienna to plan a response and demand obedience to its global drug-control regime.

Is it time to tremble in our collective boots yet?

It's interesting that an organization composed largely of corrupt dictators somehow lays claim to a role in combating crime, and plans to expand its supposed role as part of some sort of "sustainable development" program. In order to further these goals, they seem to believe that self-government should be reined in.

January 24, 2015

Colorado's Democrat governor is not too happy with the whole legal weed thing:

He said that he tells other governors to “wait a couple of years” before legalizing marijuana as Colorado continues to navigate an unknown, nonexisting federal regulatory landscape for the industry.

That's exactly the approach I advocated in the runup to the election here; the prudent move would have been to wait a while in order to benefit from the experiences in Washington and Colorado. We've already seen issues related to edibles, especially when children get ahold of them, in both states. As well, Washington's growers and distributers have issues with the concurrent "medical marijuana" dispensaries, primarily because the playing field is uneven: the dispensaries aren't subject to the testing and taxation requirements by which recreational growers and distributors are expected to abide.

This means that users can obtain weed less expensively through dispensaries.

June 09, 2014

In a blow to small-scale, craft cheesemakers around the country, the FDA has effectively banned them from production - purely for elf'n'safety, of course.

A sense of disbelief and distress is quickly rippling through the U.S. artisan cheese community, as the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week announced it will not permit American cheesemakers to age cheese on wooden boards.

That the practice has been standard for a few thousand years is apparently irrelevant. Moreover, the Agency will ban imported cheeses from Europe and Canada as well, if their products are found to have been aged on wooden boards. And most are.

In the response, Metz stated that the use of wood for cheese ripening or aging is considered an unsanitary practice by FDA, and a violation of FDA's current Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations. Here's an excerpt: "Microbial pathogens can be controlled if food facilities engage in good manufacturing practice. Proper cleaning and sanitation of equipment and facilities are absolutely necessary to ensure that pathogens do not find niches to reside and proliferate. Adequate cleaning and sanitation procedures are particularly important in facilities where persistent strains of pathogenic microorganisms like Listeria monocytogenes could be found. The use of wooden shelves, rough or otherwise, for cheese ripening does not conform to cGMP requirements, which require that "all plant equipment and utensils shall be so designed and of such material and workmanship as to be adequately cleanable, and shall be properly maintained." 21 CFR 110.40(a). Wooden shelves or boards cannot be adequately cleaned and sanitized. The porous structure of wood enables it to absorb and retain bacteria, therefore bacteria generally colonize not only the surface but also the inside layers of wood. The shelves or boards used for aging make direct contact with finished products; hence they could be a potential source of pathogenic microorganisms in the finished products."

Not that they are, or have ever been found to be, a source of pathogens. But they could, potentially, be one. The Porta-Potties in the lettuce and strawberry fields are a-okay; no potential for contamination there. But wooden boards are real no-no. No worries, though; you'll still be able to buy Velveeta.

Wisconsin cheesemaker Chris Roelli says the FDA's "clarified" stance on using wooden boards is a "potentially devastating development" for American cheesemakers. He and his family have spent the past eight years re-building Roelli Cheese into a next-generation American artisanal cheese factory. Just last year, he built what most would consider to be a state-of-the-art aging facility into the hillside behind his cheese plant. And Roelli, like hundreds of American artisanal cheesemaekrs, has developed his cheese recipes specifically to be aged on wooden boards.

"The very pillar that we built our niche business on is the ability to age our cheese on wood planks, an art that has been practiced in Europe for thousands of years," Roelli says. Not allowing American cheesemakers to use this practice puts them "at a global disadvantage because the flavor produced by aging on wood can not be duplicated. This is a major game changer for the dairy industry in Wisconsin, and many other states."

In fact, many research papers do in fact conclude that wooden boards are safe. In 2013, the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research published a paper on the subject, concluding: "Considering the beneficial effects of wood boards on cheese ripening and rind formation, the use of wood boards does not seem to present any danger of contamination by pathogenic bacteria as long as a thorough cleaning procedure is followed."

But the FDA isn't about to let a few facts stand in the way. And as the vast majority of imported cheeses are aged on wood boards, importation - as noted above - will likewise be dramatically curtailed. This development will undoubtedly please the Kraft Foods and the folks who run the show at Tillamook, among others, because hey - competition's being shut off. The big cheeses over at Big Cheese must be turning cartwheels right about now.

Once FDA's got a policy to enforce, no amount of data's going to persuade them to alter that policy. Much as government has limited your healthcare options, they're no going after your cheese. Bon appetit!

June 02, 2014

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Eric Holder’s Justice Department will utilize the power of the purse to withhold funds from the Justice Department.

Even as he's been pushing for increased funding for the DOJ, Holder's been consistently failing to turn over documents to the oversight committee as required by law; to Eric, laws are mere suggestions. And Wolf's had about enough.

Today, I am announcing a new policy that these overdue reports will no longer be tolerated by the committee. When our FY 2015 bill is marked up this spring, I intend to withhold $1 million for every overdue report from the FY 2013 and FY 2014 bills. The funds will be provided instead to agencies in this bill that comply with reporting requirements. With the current backlog of 43 reports, this could be a significant reduction in funds for the department. But you have now been given fair warning that these overdue reports will now be taken into account when the subcommittee determines your budget.

It seems that's the only way to get Holder's attention, and it's probably worth deploying to get EPA's Gina McCarthy to quit jerking us around, as well - her latest decree is that EPA should have oversight over the water that flows in your ditch after a rain. Okay, you may not have a ditch, but we do, and what Gina wants is to obligate folks to obtain EPA permits before making any alterations to said ditch. As soon as that drop of water falls from the sky, she thinkes EPA should "oversee" it. In any event, it's nice to see a House Republican exercising a little adult supervision, for a change.